Stoltzfus Biology Direct (2017) 12:23 DOI 10.1186/s13062-017-0194-1 OPINION Open Access Why we don’t want another “Synthesis” Arlin Stoltzfus1,2 Abstract High-level debates in evolutionary biology often treat the Modern Synthesis as a framework of population genetics, or as an intellectual lineage with a changing distribution of beliefs. Unfortunately, these flexible notions, used to negotiate decades of innovations, are now thoroughly detached from their historical roots in the original Modern Synthesis (OMS), a falsifiable scientific theory. The OMS held that evolution can be adequately understood as a process of smooth adaptive change by shifting the frequencies of small-effect alleles at many loci simultaneously, without the direct involvement of new mutations. This shifting gene frequencies theory was designed to support a Darwinian view in which the course of evolution is governed by selection, and to exclude a mutation-driven view in which the timing and character of evolutionary change may reflect the timing and character of events of mutation. The OMS is not the foundation of current thinking, but a special case of a broader conception that includes (among other things) a mutation-driven view introduced by biochemists in the 1960s, and now widely invoked. This innovation is evident in mathematical models relating the rate of evolution directly to the rate of mutation, which emerged in 1969, and now represent a major branch of theory with many applications. In evo-devo, mutationist thinking is reflected by a concern for the “arrival of the fittest”. Though evolutionary biology is not governed by any master theory, and incorporates views excluded from the OMS, the recognition of these changes has been hindered by woolly conceptions of theories, and by historical accounts, common in the evolutionary literature, that misrepresent the disputes that defined the OMS. Reviewers: This article was reviewed by W. Ford Doolittle, Eugene Koonin and J. Peter Gogarten. Keywords: Modern Synthesis, Evolutionary theory, Darwinism, Synthesis Historiography, Mutation-driven evolution Understanding the original Modern Synthesis unify evolutionary thinking across diverse fields such as Soon after scientists, philosophers, and historians began paleontology, botany, zoology and genetics. discussing the status of the Modern Synthesis in the 1980s, Understanding this theory— the original Modern Syn- it became clear that the Modern Synthesis conceived by thesis (OMS)— is vital to understanding, not just the past scientists was not a fixed theory, but “a moving target” [1]. three decades of debate, but issues that have been debated Scientists today may invoke it as an intellectual tradition for over a century. defined by people and their ideas, or as a flexible frame- The OMS emerged nearly seven decades ago, before work that merely follows the implications of population we knew the detailed basis of any evolutionary change, genetics for evolution. and even before we knew that hereditary information Actually, the architects of the Modern Synthesis— Mayr, is carried in chemical sequences. What the founders of Dobzhansky, Simpson, and others, drawing on earlier the OMS knew— or thought they knew— was that, to work by Fisher, Haldane, and Wright— attempted some- account for evolution, the engine of adaptation must be thing far more ambitious. They proposed a coherent, powerful, and always ready. Given the choice of some pos- falsifiable theory for how evolutionary genetics operates, sible modes of change, they favored the one that made claiming that it justifies a Darwinian view of evolution adaptation rapid and powerful. as smooth adaptation, renders all other modes of change Thus, they appealed to the experimentally demon- either illegitimate or unnecessary, and provides a basis to strated way that selection can create new types without mutation, rapidly shifting the phenotypic mean of a popu- Correspondence: [email protected] lation outside its original range by simultaneously shifting 1IBBR, 9600 Gudelsky Drive, 20850 Rockville, MD, USA 2Office of Data and Informatics, National Institute of Standards and the frequencies of available alleles at many loci, leverag- Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, 20899 Gaithersburg, MD, USA ing recombination to combine many small effects in one © The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Stoltzfus Biology Direct (2017) 12:23 Page 2 of 12 direction. In Provine’s [2] seminal history of the foun- p. 305 of [9], p. 47 of [10], p. 67 of [11–14]). In reality, as dations of the OMS, this is called the “effectiveness” or historian Jean Gayon [15] explains, the Mendelians devel- “efficacy” of natural selection, and scientists who accept oped the modern concept of selection (p. 181 to 182), and it as the sine qua non of evolution are labeled as the “the fundamental doctrines of quantitative genetics were proponents of Darwinism and selection. developed early in the century, long before the publication Though this powerful mode of change by shifting gene of Fisher’s canonical article of 1918 which is often credited frequencies depends on abundant pre-existing variation, with having laid the foundations of the discipline” (p. 316). it prevails in nature (the architects of the OMS argued) Mendelians such as Bateson, Morgan, Punnett, and because natural populations have a “gene pool” in which others synthesized mutation, heredity and selection, lay- recessivity and balancing selection (heterozygote advan- ing the conceptual foundations for, among other things, tage, negative frequency-dependent selection) maintain the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, the biological species variation that is perpetually recombined (by sexual mixis, concept, the allelic selection model, and the multiple fac- chromosome assortment, and crossing over). Events of tor theory [16]. Although they imagined the possibility of mutation that introduce new alleles may occur, but play smooth multifactorial change by selection, they did not no direct role: evolution is initiated by a change in con- insist that evolution is always Darwinian in behavior, but ditions that brings on selection, and recombination is the welcomed diverse ideas consistent with genetics, includ- proximate source of the variation from which an adaptive ing selection as a stochastic sieve (acting on individual response is shaped (see [3]; Additional file 1). All of evolu- mutations), macromutations, one-step speciation, paral- tion, including macroevolution, follows from shifting gene lel evolution by parallel mutations, and tendencies due to frequencies. biased variation [16]. With this theory in mind, we can understand historic ThesamefeaturesthatdistinguishedtheOMSfrom claims like that of Mayr (1963) [4] (for other examples, Mendelian-mutationism made it the kind of theory that see Additional file 1): could unify evolutionary biology. For the Mendelians (other than de Vries), there were no grand schemes or It is most important to clear up first some ruling principles: evolution was all about understanding misconceptions still held by a few, not familiar with the genetic details, e.g., characterizing the mutation spec- modern genetics: (1) Evolution is not primarily a trum. Their view provided little explanatory or predictive genetic event. Mutation merely supplies the gene pool power, even for a geneticist— and few evolutionists were with genetic variation; it is selection that induces geneticists. By contrast, the OMS tells us that, once we evolutionary change. (p. 613) understand the “gene pool” and the power of “shifting gene frequencies”, the genetic details cease to matter, and In this way, the OMS invokes population genetics to jus- simple rules emerge. As Fisher (1930) [17] explains, the tify a high-level view in which selection is a creative force evolutionary researcher who understands this “will direct that initiates and governs change, providing shape and his inquiries confidently toward a study of the selective direction, while variation is merely the source of fuel or agencies at work throughout the life history of the group raw materials— never a source of initiative, creativity, dis- in their native habitats, rather than to speculations on the continuity, or direction, as it is in all non-Darwinian the- possible causes which influence their mutations” (p. 21). ories. The Darwinian view is distinctive in this dichotomy Thus, when the acclaimed “population genetical of explanatory roles, particularly the notion that selection approach” (p. 16 of [18]) of the OMS was applied to is creative (e.g., p. 140 of [5]; [6, 7]). Selection is com- paleontology by Simpson, or to systematics by Mayr, this pared to a composer, sculptor, or painter, with variation did not involve population genetics directly. Instead, they supplying the notes, clay, or pigments [8]. Reviewing this applied verbal theories blessed by Dobzhansky, Fisher, position, Gould [8] concludes that “The essence of Dar- and Haldane: adaptation to changing conditions